Always look to Exploit mistakes

Hi Paul,

OK...I typed 7.b4 and jumped to move 9.
(it's the way you write, your 7's look like 9's.)

But if you had added a diagram none of this would have happened.

It would have looked like this:


When a5 and e5 are going to give Black the c5 square anyway.

I've found an OTB game with this position.


Black next two moves were e5 and a5 and a Knight did indeed settle on c5.
Black won with a standard KIA Kingside attack with White unable to drum
up any play on the Queenside.

I will get the last word in, just as I always get the last move in. 🙂

I will get the last word in, just as I always get the last move in.

You like to resign after blunders too? 😀

Originally posted by greenpawn34
Hi Paul,

OK...I typed 7.b4 and jumped to move 9.
(it's the way you write, your 7's look like 9's.)

But if you had added a diagram none of this would have happened.

It would have looked like this:

[fen]r1bq1rk1/pppnppbp/3p1np1/8/1PPPP3/6P1/P3NPBP/RNBQK2R b KQ b3 0 1[/fen]
When a5 and e5 are going to give Black the c5 square anyway.

I've ...[text shortened]... lay on the Queenside.

I will get the last word in, just as I always get the last move in. 🙂

"But if you had added a diagram none of this would have happened."

All you had to do was read. I was ok with you making a mistake, but when you said you didn't even bother to read it but felt obliged to pontificate about a mistake being made, you start to really look bad.

I responded to a particular post, answered a specific question, referred to the actual post, and you inserted yourself to no one's benefit and to my detriment.

A person who goes around labeling other people's post as mistakes without bothering to read it is a troll. And trolls never admit error or take ownership of their posts. You are not a troll, but you imitated one here.

I'm just disappointed as much as annoyed about it.

http://i48.tinypic.com/2v1omle.jpg

Hi Paul,

I misread the post, I had OP's position in mind. I looked at it right
after a posted game featuring 9.b4 (you posted that)

I never even guessed 7.b4 was on the table.
I rarely read analysis without diagrams I think I'm clear on that.
It's not new, I've been ranting on about it for years and not just on here
but on the Scottish forum, Chessgames.and in the English forum I've even
taken pot shots at GM's for not posting a diagrams to go with their analysis.

Analysis without a diagram causes confusion (witness this case in point.)

I'm still the only person in this thread who have posted the 7.b4 diagram
and I was not even talking about it. I'll do it again.




"pontificate"

I posted:

'What is it with this position that has people posting wee mistakes. '

'...wee mistake'.

I'd like to think I can pontificate with the best of them but that post is not pontification.
I even pasted in 1.b7. It was a simple error. (strewth.)

I'm sorry if skipping the rest (one sentence) of your post because you had
no diagram has you miffed (and how! I'm beginning to wish I did it on purpose.)

but even if I had read on there is nothing there to hint this is not covering the OP's question about 9.b4.

A simple diagram and I would have got it right away.

There is a wee mistake on your part - you said the OP asked the 7.b4 question.

No he never. Infact nobody did!

If you read iChopWoodForFree post you will see he is not asking Big Dog
if 7.b4 is a move. He is using it to question Big Dog's 'ridiculous' (his words)
line of reasoning.

In your post you even highlighted the last piece of his comment.

It's a sarcastic suggestion.

You answered a question (without a diagram) that was never even asked.

No wonder I missed it!

You will be please to know I have read the last sentence.

I Agree.

Although the Russian lads, Bronstein, Boleslavsky and of course Geller
refined the KID for both sides in the 40's and 50's. It came to a glorious
peak in Zurich 1953 when 56 of the 210 games were KIDs.

Bogoljubov (see his 1914 St. Peterburg game v Salwe) and Yates (his Prize
winning game v Alekhine, Carlsbad 1923). These two (and others) were
laying down the foundations.

So I'm half a Troll. OK. The usual ban for trolling was four weeks.
I'll ban myself for two weeks from posting in the forum.

But I'll be back!

Originally posted by greenpawn34
Hi Paul,

I misread the post, I had OP's position in mind. I looked at it right
after a posted game featuring 9.b4 (you posted that)

I never even guessed 7.b4 was on the table.
I rarely read analysis without diagrams I think I'm clear on that.
It's not new, I've been ranting on about it for years and not just on here
but on the Scottish foru ...[text shortened]... was four weeks.
I'll ban myself for two weeks from posting in the forum.

But I'll be back!

I meant the original post I was responding to, not the initial post, so my mistake for not being more explicit. However, I quoted the post I was responding to in my initial post, so it was clear to anyone who would read it.

However, when you state that I answered a question that was never even asked, that is simply not true. Here is the question I answered:

"Lets put it this way, if ...a5 first followed by ...Nc5 was such a good plan, white wanted to play b4 and didn't want a knight on c5 why not play 7.b4 to prevent it in the first place? "

i explained why 7. b4 does not work. The position is different before and after the 8th moves, which I addressed. I may well be wrong in my answer, but I knew what I was addressing before I responded. I'm just asking you to use the same care, or at least a "my bad" if you misread something.

I wish you would continue posting, and I know you enjoy posting other people's errors from RHP for the lessons that can be learned, but please exercise some care in doing so. We're all going to make mistakes, but it's not good to go too quickly to that assumption.

Hi Paul,

I'm Back.

You have not given the full quote:

" if ...a5 first followed by ...Nc5 was such a good plan, white wanted to play
b4 and didn't want a knight on c5 why not play 7.b4 to prevent it in the
first place? See how ridiculous your line of reasoning is?"

The bit you left out: 'See how ridiculous your line of reasoning is?'.

The lad is saying 7.b4 is not a good move. He is not asking if it is.

Anyway I've already said I was not paying due attention, I pasted in 7.b4
and turned it into 9.b4 due to having the wrong position in my mind.
(would not have happened if I saw a diagram.)

Originally posted by greenpawn34
Hi Paul,

I'm Back.

You have not given the full quote:

" if ...a5 first followed by ...Nc5 was such a good plan, white wanted to play
b4 and didn't want a knight on c5 why not play 7.b4 to prevent it in the
first place? See how ridiculous your line of reasoning is?"

The bit you left out: 'See how ridiculous your line of reasoning is?'.

...[text shortened]... 9.b4 due to having the wrong position in my mind.
(would not have happened if I saw a diagram.)

We'll just have to disagree on what he said.

As for diagrams, since you could see the first post in the thread and its accompanying pgn, and since my post did not match that pgn viewer sample, you should have asked "Why do these not match?" instead of just assuming a mistake.

That question would have spurred you to read further, and you would have avoided making a mistake yourself.

The diagram would not have helped- because you did not read, you would just labeled it as a mistaken diagram rather than a mistaken text post.

The essence is that you made a mistake yourself by erroneously labeling someone else's post an error. The rest is just an integrity litmus test.

At this point, you can write whatever you like.

And he is my diagram.



My one is the better diagram (it's simply a mirror image.)

However....

If you replace one white pawn with a White King and add a Black King.
You can mate in one with the move that started all this. b2-b4!

Originally posted by greenpawn34
And he is my diagram.

[fen]8/1p6/ppp2ppp/1p6/3pp3/P6P/1P4P1/2PPPP2 w - - 0 1[/fen]

My one is the better diagram (it's simply a mirror image.)

However....

If you replace one white pawn with a White King and add a Black King.
You can mate in one with the move that started all this. b2-b4!

This is the perfect answer!

Paul Liget knows all about how a troll works...he is one!

Originally posted by Mott The Hoople
Paul Liget knows all about how a troll works...he is one!

No. Just...no.

Originally posted by Mott The Hoople
Paul Liget knows all about how a troll works...he is one!

Seriously???

Dude, just stop before you make yourself appear more the idiot please. Paul is a very nice guy-the scolding he gave you in the other thread was very well deserved although obviously not well received.